Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j4VLs3G18631; Tue, 31 May 2005 17:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20050531163441.038e37e0@mail.linkup.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: HealthwaySoftware <magillispie@healthwaysoftware.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:4741] Re: Evaluating low literacy/multilingual X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Status: O Content-Length: 3172 Lines: 61 Kristen, We have done a number of evaluations of the multilingual materials we develop for our Healthy Roads Media website (www.healthyroadsmedia.org). We used the evaluation framework developed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and described in their publication "Wired for Health and Well Being" (www.health.gov/scipich/pubs/finalreport.htm). Briefly it has progressive stages of evaluation that addresses a series of questions such as "Do the materials engage or appeal to the target audience?", "Did the patient's attitude change?", "Did the patient learn something? and continuing until the final question" Is the program cost effective?". We used a variety of ways to try to get to at least the first few levels of evaluation. We needed the strategies to be low cost and practical in a multilingual setting where there were not always going to be interpreters available. For one project we developed a computer-based interactive multilingual survey that included audio of all the questions and answers. We also had paper versions available for those who did not have literacy challenges in reading the survey. Another survey we developed was one for observers (staff people) to fill out while the patient used the computer-based health education materials we were trying to evaluate. We tried to gather some idea of what the patient's experience was even if the staff person and patient did not speak the same language and there was not an interpreter available. We included basic demographic questions, who directed the patient to the computer (family member, staff person, etc.), whether the patient quit in the middle of the interaction, whether they wanted more information about the health topic, facial expression (appeared confused, smiling, interested, etc.) and a number of other questions. This strategy was also helpful. We also have used surveys and/or interviews with staff and administrative people to gather their impressions of the materials. While none of these methods gives a complete picture, they each provide a piece of evaluation information that can help guide future work. Good luck in your work. Mary Alice Mary Alice Gillispie, MD Healthy Roads Media, Director At 04:02 PM 5/31/2005, you wrote: >I am helping to evaluate a health literacy program for adult ESL >students. I am currently researching information related to developing >and administering measurement tools for a multilingual, lower-literacy >population in a classroom setting. Can anyone recommend any particular >references that discuss successful measurement (quantitative or >qualitative) or administrative techniques to collect data from a >multilingual population (i.e.., not translating tools but developing >tools in English). Some issues that we anticipate dealing with might >be: > >1. A lack of cultural familiarity among students with completing >surveys or participating in focus groups; > >2. Developing tools/methods that are sensitive enough to measure >attitude, knowledge, and behavior change and also understandable to the >participants. > >Thanks!! >Sincerely, >Kristin Hoeft
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:39 EST